The Misandry Bubble

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by BruinsFan10101

Yeah, it is pretty screwed up that men & boys today get virtually zero assistance when it comes to being the victims of domestic violence or rape. Even though these are clearly problems affecting both genders at roughly the same degree.
...In fact, there are so manly people in society today who have been so miseducated by decades of feminist propaganda, that they are virtually incapable of recognizing male victims of anything, much less helping them. So you could say men actually have negative help from society.
If it were this way for women, you could bet your bottom dollar society wouldn't tolerate that for a red second. (nor should it).

But the part that makes this seem like we're living in the bloody twilight zone is where we have government policies, organizations & charities (funded by taxpayer dollars) that exist to lend aid to ONLY the female victims in society. & everybody frames these issues as though male victims don't even exist!
Here are 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses that prove otherwise:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Its just absolutely insane!

When is society going to get a grip on reality here? Men are human beings too. What if we woke up tomorrow & the homepage of the Flames website read:
"Jerome Iginla shot dead by wife while sleeping".
I think a great many people would care about THAT. But why doesn't that same attitude translate to all men in society? Why do we only have sympathy & humanity for males who are in our own families or men who can do #### for us?
It's all pretty ####ed up.

Actually I think people care about domestic murders equally. If a woman murders her husband it will make the news, likewise if a man murders his wife it will make the news. Neither will be a national story unless it is a celebrity (ie Phil Hartman).

I agree men do need shelters and protection. However, to blame this on feminist propaganda is absurd. It's more due to the macho facade that society has created for men over thousands of years and how men are supposed to behave/act. I have never seen anything put out by feminists that would make me believe that male victims don't exist.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Actually I think people care about domestic murders equally. If a woman murders her husband it will make the news, likewise if a man murders his wife it will make the news. Neither will be a national story unless it is a celebrity (ie Phil Hartman).

I agree men do need shelters and protection. However, to blame this on feminist propaganda is absurd. It's more due to the macho facade that society has created for men over thousands of years and how men are supposed to behave/act. I have never seen anything put out by feminists that would make me believe that male victims don't exist.

Was just going to post this. You'll actually see some of the more progressive feminists argue that women will never be treated as equals until we rehabilitate our perceptions of masculinity.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Actually I think people care about domestic murders equally. If a woman murders her husband it will make the news, likewise if a man murders his wife it will make the news. Neither will be a national story unless it is a celebrity (ie Phil Hartman).

I agree men do need shelters and protection. However, to blame this on feminist propaganda is absurd. It's more due to the macho facade that society has created for men over thousands of years and how men are supposed to behave/act. I have never seen anything put out by feminists that would make me believe that male victims don't exist.

Here are all the crime headlines in Canada from Cnews going back to May 2012. Reports of serious violence committed by women against men are relatively rare:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/archive.html

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by troutman

Here are all the crime headlines in Canada from Cnews going back to May 2012. Reports of serious violence committed by women against men are relatively rare:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/archive.html

Exactly, crimes against men are not a headline issue.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Exactly, crimes against men are not a headline issue.

I disagree. There is no conspiracy by the media to bury stories where men are the victims. They will report on any serious crime. I think what we are seeing here (partly) is that men may not be reporting being victims to the police, but the larger point is that women are more at risk to be victims of serious violence.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by troutman

I disagree. There is no conspiracy by the media to bury stories where men are the victims. They will report on any serious crime. I think what we are seeing here (partly) is that men may not be reporting being victims to the police, but the larger point is that women are more at risk to be victims of serious violence.

Why would you tag "conspiracy" next to it except to attempt to completely discredit it. The paper prints for sales. Men stories don't sell papers unless they are doing something wrong. Talk to journalists and see what stories are printed.

"Women are more aware of crime, yet men are more than 3 times more likely to get mugged or assaulted" Crime Stoppers

You are correct. A man is afraid to report an assault because he should be able to deal with it himself. So says our culture and society.

Women also have shelters to go to for support/protection/education. Men do not have shelters to go for support/protection/education. So if he is getting assulted and has nowhere to go he will eventually hit a point where he can't take it anymore. If there was a place he could go do you think this would increase the chances of a happier ending?

"While there was no statistically significant change in the level of spousal violence against men since 1999 (7% versus 6%), there was a small but statistically significant decline for women during this period (8% versus 7%)." Stats Canada.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Why would you tag "conspiracy" next to it except to attempt to completely discredit it. The paper prints for sales. Men stories don't sell papers unless they are doing something wrong.

Source?

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Source?

I'm still waiting for the bunch to point out belittling (Tinordi for example) of women.

Ha ha ha you have more than enough sources that are being ignored. Read a paper.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I'm still waiting for the bunch to point out belittling (Tinordi for example) of women.

Ha ha ha you have more than enough sources that are being ignored. Read a paper.

No, you made the claim. If you're stating something like that as fact, you need to provide a source to back it up.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Many claims have been made towards my character, my subject. I have. I'm still waiting. I owe nothing.

But be proud to pounce here. Beat your chest. You and the others here still ignore the need for shelters. Which is appalling.

And piss off on picking one sentience and ignoring everything else. At least Rathji can talk about it "like a man".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Many claims have been made towards my character, my subject. I have. I'm still waiting. I owe nothing.

But be proud to pounce here. Beat your chest. You and the others here still ignore the need for shelters. Which is appalling.

And piss off on picking one sentience and ignoring everything else. At least Rathji can talk about it "like a man".

I'm not ignoring the need for anything, and I've said nothing about your character. You made a claim that stories about abuse towards women are more profitable than abuse towards men, and thus that explains their prevalence in the media. I'm asking you whether you have any proof of this. Do you really think that's unreasonable?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Why is it a slight to use American figures? Culturally, Canada & the USA are very similar. (At least, compared to all other nations). I also have British figures there too.

Because Canadian demographics differ from American demographics and Congolese demographics and . . . it's a different country! Does this really need explaining? Why would the Canadian government give funding to Canadian programs for Canadian people if all they are given is statistics concerning a different country?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

"While there was no statistically significant change in the level of spousal violence against men since 1999 (7% versus 6%), there was a small but statistically significant decline for women during this period (8% versus 7%)." Stats Canada.

So a 1% decrease for spousal violence against men is insignificant, but against women it is significant. That's an odd statement.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

And piss off on picking one sentience and ignoring everything else. At least Rathji can talk about it "like a man".

If you make claims that can't be supported by any sort of evidence or reasoning, why do you expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously? The way you post in this thread, and the contents of your posts in this thread, make me question just about every number you bring up. It makes me question everything you say to such an extent that I end up not taking what you say seriously -- and your cause as an extension of that -- because I don't have the time to individually research everything you post.

I want to say this in the nicest way possible: you make a bad spokesperson for your case. Hyperbole, number fudging (even if it's only some of the numbers), and bad reasoning skills leaves me with the impression this isn't about helping men that need help so much as closing an equality gap you've convinced yourself actually exists between the genders. I'm not saying this to be mean to you, I'm saying this out of concern for those men that actually do need help. If your approach is the approach the bulk of those that have taken up this issue take, those men will likely never get the funding and help they may need.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Sowa

So a 1% decrease for spousal violence against men is insignificant, but against women it is significant. That's an odd statement.

"Statistically significant" is not the same as "significant". Statistically significant means greater than the margin of error. It could be that the have a smaller sample size for men, or that both decreases are close to the margin of error, but the decrease for women is slightly higher than for men. Keep in mind those 1 percents are rounded, so they may not be equal.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by SebC

"Statistically significant" is not the same as "significant". Statistically significant means greater than the margin of error. It could be that the have a smaller sample size for men, or that both decreases are close to the margin of error, but the decrease for women is slightly higher than for men. Keep in mind those 1 percents are rounded, so they may not be equal.

Yeah, just saying if I was putting out that line I would probably not round it to that decimal if it is going to make the decrease appear the same. That said statistics was one of my least favorite courses in college.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Sowa

So a 1% decrease for spousal violence against men is insignificant, but against women it is significant. That's an odd statement.

The male DV against women has decreased in the 5 year span, but women are still hurting their men at a same rate.

I believe it's about 100 000 women are no longer suffering from DV in the 5 year span.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

If you make claims that can't be supported by any sort of evidence or reasoning, why do you expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously? The way you post in this thread, and the contents of your posts in this thread, make me question just about every number you bring up. It makes me question everything you say to such an extent that I end up not taking what you say seriously -- and your cause as an extension of that -- because I don't have the time to individually research everything you post.

I want to say this in the nicest way possible: you make a bad spokesperson for your case. Hyperbole, number fudging (even if it's only some of the numbers), and bad reasoning skills leaves me with the impression this isn't about helping men that need help so much as closing an equality gap you've convinced yourself actually exists between the genders. I'm not saying this to be mean to you, I'm saying this out of concern for those men that actually do need help. If your approach is the approach the bulk of those that have taken up this issue take, those men will likely never get the funding and help they may need.

No it's the topic that is ridiculed. Statistics are always used to gather support and funding for womens shelters. It's a double standard that men can't do the same thing.

Also if you can't take the time to read the info then don't ignorantly comment on it. It's required to understand the perspectives before you can reasonably discuss the issue.

Number fudging - I am pretty sure I explained the source and situation before you read the entire first post. Also, it has been discussed and concluded with no rebuttal for any other point.

Where is the exaggeration? Where are the bad reasoning skills? You seem to think I'm an expert on this subject. I informed you that I am green. This thread has been wonderful for throwing myself into the fire and getting me to read the issues and a HUGE rate. You wouldn't believe the time I spent since I posted.

Notional Post by Barbara Kay

"By now there is no excuse for the failure of governments at all levels to follow through on — or at least acknowledge — the settled science of bilateral violence. Yet just last week the Justice Institute of British Columbia issued a lengthy report on “Domestic Violence Prevention and Reduction,” and sure enough, it defines domestic violence as “intimate partner violence against women,” recommending only that government work “to bridge gaps in the services and systems designed to protect women and children.”
In Rethinking Domestic Violence (2006), his third in a series of comprehensive interdisciplinary reviews of IPV and related criminal justice research, University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton cuts through the politicized clutter in this domain. Dutton concludes that personality disorder, culture and a background of family dysfunction, not gender, are the best predictors of partner violence. To further IPV harm reduction, Dutton recommends individual psychological treatment or couples therapy to replace the ideology-inspired thought-reform model, imposed only on male abusers, that has been common (and largely ineffective) practice for many years.
Ironically, and unjustly, abused men today are where women were 60 years ago: their ill-treatment is ignored, trivialized or mocked; there are virtually no funded resources for them; and they are expected to suffer partner violence in silence. Which most of them do."


National Post - Barbara Kay

Marketing campaigns funded by high-profile companies drill the message home with slick and costly media ads. That the message is misleading, biased and sexist is rarely noted and virtually always ignored when it is noted.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

The male DV against women has decreased in the 5 year span, but women are still hurting their men at a same rate.

What the stats you cherry-pick (well more than half have been discredited after the most cursory of reviews) in an effort to prove your point fail to account for is the level or degree of violence.

As Troutman pointed out, based on newspaper reports, the level of violence by men against women outpaces the level of violence by women against men. If you don't know what I mean, a man beating his wife to a bloody pulp is not equivalent to a woman slapping a man across the face.

Yes, wives occasionally murder their husbands, but for your suggestion that there are the same number of men receiving the same level of violence against them as women face by men, in Canada at least, is laughable.

Simple logic would lead one to conclude the larger, stronger partner is able to inflict much more physical damage and in cases where the man is the sole bread-winner in the household, he is able to use economic abuse as well.

Quit pretending violence against men is in any way equivalent to violence agains women.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

As Troutman pointed out, based on newspaper reports, the level of violence by men against women outpaces the level of violence by women against men. If you don't know what I mean, a man beating his wife to a bloody pulp is not equivalent to a woman slapping a man across the face.

This is something that I had pointed out earlier I think. The metrics used which observe equivalent domestic violence levels often remove everything but the concept of violence, including situation and level, by virtue of the system they used.

A woman who slaps a man if he is trying to kick their son (and he leaves after getting slapped) is considered the offender and the sole actor in the domestic violence metric used in the earlier mentioned annotated bibliography. Furthermore, if a woman beats a man within an inch of his life is measured the same as her slapping him.